Obama beats Tea Party to spending cuts

Mojo said:
You seem confused.

..."speaking on the day before his party takes control of the House, Cantor did not rule out defense cuts. "Everything is going to have to be on the table," he told reporters..."

What part of "everything" do you suppose will be exempt?
Click to expand...

Troll, WinterBorn was talking about military retiree benefits. You come in with social security and other non-related items. Yes, I understand how you play your little game on this board.
 
Mojo said:
My question wasn't directed to you, was it?

"Representative Jeff Flake, a fiscal hawk who will have a say in spending as a member of the Appropriations Committee, told Reuters he will push for cuts to the Head Start preschool program, ethanol subsidies, Homeland Security grants and job training programs.

The Pentagon should not be exempt, he said.

"For those who say we can't touch it and shouldn't touch it, that's absurd -- we've got to," Flake told Reuters. "There's no way we're going to have the fiscal responsibility we need without addressing defense spending."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7035AT20110104
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, answering your questions seems to be the extent of our conversations.

You posted a question and I answered it. If you want private conversations you are in the wrong place.
 
cawacko said:
Troll, WinterBorn was talking about military retiree benefits. You come in with social security and other non-related items. Yes, I understand how you play your little game on this board.
Click to expand...

Explain how Social Security is a non-related item when discusssing budget cuts.

... “Are you willing to perhaps raise the Social Security retirement age?,” Lauer asked Cantor Tuesday morning. “Are you willing to make cuts in Medicare? Are you willing to make cuts in defense spending? Are any of those issues on the table?”

“I think, you know, we’ve got to have everything on the table right now,” Cantor said.

“That’s also what we heard from the people on November 2.

… Everything should be on the table.

I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned while we’re trying to do what most have in this country have done, which is tighten the belt, which is to try and live within our means.”


So Social Security appears to be "on the table".


"Winterborn" seems to be referring to the fact that SecDef reportedly announced that "the Pentagon will seek to increase medical premiums for retired working-age military personnel...the costs of health coverage had not been revised since the 1990s and are only a fraction of the costs of private health insurance"...
 
Mojo said:
Explain how Social Security is a non-related item when discusssing budget cuts.

... “Are you willing to perhaps raise the Social Security retirement age?,” Lauer asked Cantor Tuesday morning. “Are you willing to make cuts in Medicare? Are you willing to make cuts in defense spending? Are any of those issues on the table?”

“I think, you know, we’ve got to have everything on the table right now,” Cantor said.

“That’s also what we heard from the people on November 2.

… Everything should be on the table.

I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned while we’re trying to do what most have in this country have done, which is tighten the belt, which is to try and live within our means.”


So Social Security appears to be "on the table".


"Winterborn" seems to be referring to the fact that SecDef reportedly announced that "the Pentagon will seek to increase medical premiums for retired working-age military personnel...the costs of health coverage had not been revised since the 1990s and are only a fraction of the costs of private health insurance"...
Click to expand...

WinterBorn was expressing his opinion on what should not be allowed to be on the table. It is an opinion, I might add, that I have expressed to my representatives in Washington.
 
Mojo said:
Explain how Social Security is a non-related item when discusssing budget cuts.

... “Are you willing to perhaps raise the Social Security retirement age?,” Lauer asked Cantor Tuesday morning. “Are you willing to make cuts in Medicare? Are you willing to make cuts in defense spending? Are any of those issues on the table?”

“I think, you know, we’ve got to have everything on the table right now,” Cantor said.

“That’s also what we heard from the people on November 2.

… Everything should be on the table.

I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned while we’re trying to do what most have in this country have done, which is tighten the belt, which is to try and live within our means.”


So Social Security appears to be "on the table".


"Winterborn" seems to be referring to the fact that SecDef reportedly announced that "the Pentagon will seek to increase medical premiums for retired working-age military personnel...the costs of health coverage had not been revised since the 1990s and are only a fraction of the costs of private health insurance"...
Click to expand...

Done with you troll. Discussion was on retired military benefits.
 
WinterBorn said:
WinterBorn was expressing his opinion on what should not be allowed to be on the table. It is an opinion, I might add, that I have expressed to my representatives in Washington.
Click to expand...

I'm sure your representatives have considered your opinion with all the gravitas it merits.
 
Mojo said:
I'll keep that in mind.

Do you normally speak for others?
Click to expand...

I normally join right in whatever thread I choose. Especially one in which the topic is one I have strong opinions about.
 
Increases in the fees paid by for retired, working-age veterans for their health insurance....increases in fees for the military’s health-care system, called Tricare

Reductions of up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces
while
adding about 1,400 Marines in coming months to the forces fighting in Afghanistan (while unemployment is rampant)

Cancellations of weapons systems(puts jobs at risk)

Delaying purchases of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, made by Lockheed Martin (puts jobs at risk)

But

Not a word about maybe reducing the pay of House and Senate legislators
Not a word about reducing pension benefits of House and Senate legislators
Not a word about reducing perks of House and Senate legislators, like government supplied cars and car insurance, meals, housing per diem, etc..
Not a word about legislators paying for part of their health benefits like the rest of us...
Not a word about at least freezing the pay of already over-paid government workers
Not a word about stopping benefits to illegals
Not a word about stopping welfare to corps.

The list is endless....
 
Mojo said:
Fair enough.

Do you feel up to joining in with a clarification of this post?



Speifically, which Senators want to snatch away retirement because they "don't want to disappoint their cash-cow defense contractor"?
Click to expand...

The retirees risked their lives and gave up opportunities at much more lucrative careers in order to serve the nation.

I don't think their meager benefits (compared to the overall military budget) should be available for cutting.
 
bravo said:
Increases in the fees paid by for retired, working-age veterans for their health insurance....increases in fees for the military’s health-care system, called Tricare

Reductions of up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces
while
adding about 1,400 Marines in coming months to the forces fighting in Afghanistan (while unemployment is rampant)

Cancellations of weapons systems(puts jobs at risk)

Delaying purchases of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, made by Lockheed Martin (puts jobs at risk)

But

Not a word about maybe reducing the pay of House and Senate legislators
Not a word about reducing pension benefits of House and Senate legislators
Not a word about reducing perks of House and Senate legislators, like government supplied cars and car insurance, meals, housing per diem, etc..
Not a word about legislators paying for part of their health benefits like the rest of us...
Not a word about at least freezing the pay of already over-paid government workers
Not a word about stopping benefits to illegals
Not a word about stopping welfare to corps.

The list is endless....
Click to expand...

Did you expect SecDef to make an announcement cutting congressional pay and benefits, illegal immigration, or corporate subsidies?

BTW, the President did ask that federal workers' pay be frozen recently. Did that escape your notice?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/obama_announces_pay_freeze_for.html
 
WinterBorn said:
The retirees risked their lives and gave up opportunities at much more lucrative careers in order to serve the nation.

I don't think their meager benefits (compared to the overall military budget) should be available for cutting.
Click to expand...

Have you told your elected representatives that?

"Cawacko" did, supposedly.
 
WinterBorn said:
The military retirees passed up civilian opportunities that would have paid them much better. They gave up most of the simple freedoms we take for granted. They did it for any number of reasons. But they were promised a set retirement in exchange for their 20+ investment. Having retirement be screwed up because it was invested in stocks or whatever is one thing. To just have it snatched away because senators don't want to disappoint their cash-cow defense contractor is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Which Senators are those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top